Should we go back into lockdown at this point?

[Class 33]

A second lockdown would cause civil unrest and we could see scenes of riots like we had in 1981 and 2011.

Many people (myself included) have simply had enough of all this now. The economy would go into meltdown and the winter months will certainly have a greater impact on people's mental health than the spring months of the original lockdown.

CJ

Social unrest would be worse than even that I think.

We’re already at the point where a lot of people are at the point where they’re near the end of tether with all this, for a number of different reasons, and the idea of something where some people have it in their minds that other people are potential mass murderers is as inflammatory as it gets, before we add things like job losses and financial ruin into the mix. And of course a government who have shown zero tact in trying to manage and reconcile all this.

I am genuinely bothered about what the next few months are going to hold.

Yes I do fear that if we go into full national lockdown again which drags on for weeks on end, we could well see civil unrest and riots. A lot of people just won't be able to stand for this much longer. I would hate to see a repeat of the 2011 riots which happened in numerous cities across the country.

It seems the government don't seem to be too concerned really about the MASSIVE effect yet another lockdown will have on the economy and on the nations mental health. Even though the lockdown of March has eased quite a bit since then, life is FAR from being back to normal due to these current seemingly never-ending social distancing rules and face masks laws. It is not pleasant atall. Even now, this will be effecting many thousands of people's mental health. But imagine if we go into full national lockdown again, and we have to go through all this all over again for months on end AGAIN.

My mum is over 70 and lives on her own with her cat. She is very scared that we could be going into full lockdown all over again. During the original lockdown in it's first phase from 23rd March to about mid May when it was eased, she found this period pretty tough on her mental health as she wasn't able to meet any of her friends or family in person - only able to talk to them on the phone or via email, which isn't the same atall. And also found it tough having to stay in for most of the day, apart from just a short outing for once a day exercise/shopping. She doesn't like staying in all day on her own. So to having to go back into lockdown all over again, she is dreading the thought that that will happen.

If we go into lockdown again, it will effect my mental health too. Can't be doing with going through all that again.

Please Boris, see some sense and say ABSOLUTELY NO to a full national lockdown. If this goes ahead, it will do enormous damage to the UK.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Stage 2 would be ok, but the latest restrictions seem to involve no two households meeting in any circumstances, not just outside the home.

They don't; I'd suggest re-reading them.

I'm pretty sure it's no socialising outwith your household at all, though I may be wrong.

You are wrong

I thought you could still socialise in public, but not in homes or gardens? If you cannot socialise at all then that would be very distressing for people like me who live alone.

This is correct, you can outside the home. You can also form a support bubble with one other household if there's one suitable.

 

[Huntergreed]

You are wrong

For once - I’m glad to be wrong!

 

[Skimpot flyer]

The Express was still supporting Hitler at the time.

In times like these, a good laugh works wonders... this comment caused me to splurt my cup of tea

 

[adc82140]

Boris has also suggested that the rules may be regionalised: SE, SW, Midlands etc.

 

[DelayRepay]

Someone just shared a theory that this is the behavioural scientists again - using the threat of a lockdown to try to force compliance with social distancing etc. If it is I hope it works.

I cannot stand our current PM, but I doubt he wants another lockdown any more than I do.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Boris has also suggested that the rules may be regionalised: SE, SW, Midlands etc.

It seems there's now a sense that giving it to local Councils has ended up with an unholy mess (just like most things local Councils do). If he's realised that, good on him.

 

[P Binnersley]

If you look at the figures, only three things have had a significant impact on the rate of infection.
26 March - Lockdown (rate falls)
01 June - Schools (partially) reopen & meet up to six people outside (slow fall/stable)
01 Sept - Schools Fully re-open (rate increases).

Local lock downs do not seem to be having much of an impact, and some areas were still increasing during the full lockdown.

The most significant thing that the Government could do is close schools; but that is politically unacceptable unless done as a full lockdown. A lockdown won't solve the problem. Only postpone it. We can't stay locked down for ever.

 

[Journeyman]

In times like these, a good laugh works wonders... this comment caused me to splurt my cup of tea

I'm here all week!

 

[Smidster]

For once - I’m glad to be wrong!

No, you are right. In some local lockdown areas any socialising out of your bubble is banned - that is certainly the case in the North East and Birmingham.

In Yorkshire you can socialise is a pub but that is now the exception in terms of local lockdowns

There should absolutely not be another national lockdown - the whole point of the first one was to give us a one shot emergency lever to buy a bit of time to figure out a plan. It shows a cataclysmic failure of Government that it is even being considered.

If it did happen there would not be "social unrest" - people saying that are like those who said there would be riots if Brexit was delayed and they never happened either.

If you look at the figures, only three things have had a significant impact on the rate of infection.
26 March - Lockdown (rate falls)
01 June - Schools (partially) reopen & meet up to six people outside (slow fall/stable)
01 Sept - Schools Fully re-open (rate increases).

Local lock downs do not seem to be having much of an impact, and some areas were still increasing during the full lockdown.

The most significant thing that the Government could do is close schools; but that is politically unacceptable unless done as a full lockdown. A lockdown won't solve the problem. Only postpone it. We can't stay locked down for ever.

What we are seeing now is not anything to do with schools - it is too soon as they have only been open for 10 days in England.

This has been building for several weeks with increased movement of people over the Summer as more social interactions were permitted (including EOTHO)

I do hope that, whatever the pressure, we keep schools open - the long term damage of any other action is much worse than this disease

 

[ChrisC]

I agree getting rid of the government isnt really a solution. Getting rid of Boris might help though. In the longer term society as a whole needs to think hard about what politicians we field and elect, this has really found our politicians to be lacking in ability.

I know that Theresa May did not make a very good job of sorting out Brexit but would she have been better than Boris in the current situation? I do think that she would have been better at addressing the nation with a clearer less confused message than Boris.

 

[DB]

I know that Theresa May did not make a very good job of sorting out Brexit but would she have been better than Boris in the current situation? I do think that she would have been better at addressing the nation with a clearer less confused message than Boris.

Probably. Even Cameron would probably have been better. Johnson is utterly useless.

 

[Baxenden Bank]

No, it is not time for a full-on, nationwide (UK,GB, England and/or Scotland and/or Wales, pick your own definition).

We may be heading towards the need for proper, effective, intervention measures in specific geographical areas. Those measures must be properly thought through, properly communicated to the public and then adequately enforced. Looking at the map, there are significant parts of the country with a minimal number of cases ie in the 0-2 category. Why should the entirety of the South-West be bricked up in their homes?

The measures need to be graduated, according to need in a specific geography, and there needs to be a clear process for tightening and easing any restrictions imposed, based on established, publicly agreed criteria. Basically so people can look at the numbers and see what is likely next week. A system like a bulls-eye where the centre (40+ cases in seven days) will know what their restrictions are. The neighbouring areas (30 - 40 cases) will have slightly less severe restrictions and so on. If everyone follows the clear guidelines, cases will reduce and your carrot is fewer restrictions next week, don't follow the guidelines and your stick is more severe restrictions next week.

We could also do with not using the word 'lockdown' for the mish-mash of measures currently being applied differently in specific areas. Today I started a comparison of the restrictions in place in various areas. Some have 'Shielding' in place, some have levels of travel 'advice' in place - all travel or just public transport travel. I saw no areas, as of today, where anyone is actually in lockdown - as per the March version. Certainy no-one is under true curfew. Use of very emotive terms, by the media to generate clicks, is not helping. Insisting pubs close at 2200 is not much of a restriction to those of us who remember standard closing time of 2230. Better still, go home at 2130, your liver will thank you for it and your wallet will be fatter. Talk quicker whilst in the pub to get it all done in less time!

Finally, perhaps pubs and shops could close one day per week - say on Sundays - a day of rest from spreading the virus.

 

[bramling]

I know that Theresa May did not make a very good job of sorting out Brexit but would she have been better than Boris in the current situation? I do think that she would have been better at addressing the nation with a clearer less confused message than Boris.

I don’t know to be honest. Her comms weren’t wonderful either (though she could probably have managed to cut through better), and she did have a bit of a history of dithering and u-turning.

On the other hand I think her decision making might have been more sound, especially having some idea what the consequences might be from a given decision.

It’s the latter point which really bugs me going forward. A second lockdown will have social and economic consequences, as well as being damaging to individual wellbeing. Boris just doesn’t seem to get that.

 

[Isaiah]

Thank goodness most the people on this forum are sane

Another lockdown would be an absolute mess

"Just keep on giving your freedoms away guys"... as someone said before the fact that this is being mentioned shows what an incompetent and authoritarian government we have

Come on, who is actually supporting another one? Own up

 

[Baxenden Bank]

Thank goodness most the people on this forum are sane

Another lockdown would be an absolute mess

"Just keep on giving your freedoms away guys"... as someone said before the fact that this is being mentioned shows what an incompetent and authoritarian government we have

Come on, who is actually supporting another one? Own up

No need to ask, votes are publicly visible:

• philjo
• a_c_skinner
• James H
• squizzler
• lewesroad
• 30A4EVER
• StationTown

and

• curly42
• themaster985
• jkkne
• southern442
• Saint66
• Bletchleyite
• jonboy
• alxndr
• Peter0124
• lxfe_mxtterz
• Megafuss
• UTB93
• 37424

 

[Huntergreed]

I would be interested to know from the 7 people that did vote yes, why do you think another lockdown at this point is a good idea?

 

[Darandio]

I would be interested to know from the 7 people that did vote yes, why do you think another lockdown at this point is a good idea?

Just click on the number of votes for yes in the poll.

 

[Bletchleyite]

In Yorkshire you can socialise is a pub but that is now the exception in terms of local lockdowns

No, it's not. In all of the new ones (Newcastle/County Durham, Wolverhampton, Oadby, Lancashire) it is allowed too.

 

[Skimpot flyer]

In the original lockdown, restaurants were ordered to close.
When they were allowed to re-open, only takeaway service was permitted, presumably as people sitting in close proximity was deemed a risk. Then slowly, table dining was permitted again, with ‘Covid secure’ measures in place.
So why do the new restrictions permit indoor dining but ban takeaway? Where is the logic and consistency behind these daft rules?

 

[Bletchleyite]

I would be interested to know from the 7 people that did vote yes, why do you think another lockdown at this point is a good idea?

I would support a short one so as to bring cases down to the point that our testing infrastructure can manage it. If it was done by way of a 2-week half term (i.e. for both weeks that schools typically pick one of) it would basically have no educational impact, and two weeks would have limited financial impact, particularly if some assistance was provided to businesses who would find it difficult.

It wouldn't need to be as strict as last time - in particular, it would not need to prevent anything outdoors at all because outdoor spread has been found to be negligible.

It's important that the caseload remains below the level our testing infrastructure can handle, as if it isn't we lose control. That needs fixing urgently, but in the meantime doing nothing is infeasible.

However, another long lockdown would destroy the economy.

 

[HSTEd]

You can prevent new viruses from infecting humans by staying away from their rainforest habitat, & preventing other close contact with wild animals such as in wet markets. There could even be a 'go between' animal like livestock in cut down rainforests used for farming. So say, wild animal - livestock - human. Of course, complete prevention of pandemics may be impossible - but certainly through international cooperation, we could prevent some. Don't forget SARS was a Coronavirus & not enough was done to prevent\prepare for another.

The more likely outcome is driving the obliteration of rainforests and extirpation of large populations of wild animals.

 

[yorkie]

You can prevent new viruses from infecting humans by staying away from their rainforest habitat, & preventing other close contact with wild animals such as in wet markets. There could even be a 'go between' animal like livestock in cut down rainforests used for farming. So say, wild animal - livestock - human. Of course, complete prevention of pandemics may be impossible - but certainly through international cooperation, we could prevent some. Don't forget SARS was a Coronavirus & not enough was done to prevent\prepare for another.

You cannot "prevent" something that has been occurring naturally for as long as we have existed.

You say "not enough" was done to prepare, but what about the work of the Oxford group? Will you acknowledge the fantastic work they've been doing?

I was talking about destruction in terms of not taking threats serious as I clearly outlined.

Viruses like Sars-Cov-2 kill a tiny percentage of those they infect; in the case of Sars-Cov-2 deaths, the average age is 83 ('flu is lower than this).

I would support a short one so as to bring cases down to the point that our testing infrastructure can manage it.....

And how would you keep cases really low?

 

[Bletchleyite]

So why do the new restrictions permit indoor dining but ban takeaway? Where is the logic and consistency behind these daft rules?

They don't. Some people on here misinterpreted a badly worded sentence to intepret that they did, but if you look at the actual legislation for the local lockdown under discussion (Newcastle etc) it doesn't. The table service thing is that bar service is not permitted, and customers must, in effect, be seated on appropriately socially distanced tables (the spacing of which is now legislated) unless using the toilets or entering/leaving the premises.

This will affect very few pubs other than 'Spoons which needs a kick up the backside anyway. Most are doing table service only and have spaced tables properly. Actual restaurants of course only do table service anyway.

And how would you keep cases really low?

They just need to be within the capability of the testing infrastructure, i.e. so everyone who reports symptoms can obtain a test in a local test centre or a home test, and receive a result within at most a couple of days. I don't trust that this will necessarily happen (because I don't trust the Government as far as I could pick them up and throw them), but it should buy time to increase that.

 

[keep truckin]

You cannot "prevent" something that has been occurring naturally for as long as we have existed.

Viruses like Sars-Cov-2 kill a tiny percentage of those they infect; in the case of Sars-Cov-2 deaths, the average age is 83 ('flu is lower than this).


And how would you keep cases really low?

Obviously I'm talking about preventing killing humans. I'm ways outlined in a documentary by Attenborough called xtinction The Facts. Very informative.

You cannot "prevent" something that has been occurring naturally for as long as we have existed.

You say "not enough" was done to prepare, but what about the work of the Oxford group? Will you acknowledge the fantastic work they've been doing?

Viruses like Sars-Cov-2 kill a tiny percentage of those they infect; in the case of Sars-Cov-2 deaths, the average age is 83 ('flu is lower than this).


And how would you keep cases really low?

A future pandemic may be even more deadly than Covid19.

I'm astounded that you talk about prevention of catastrophes such as pandemics, nuclear war & climate change & you meet resistance.

Surely, with what's going on these threats should now be taken seriously. Jeez.

 

[yorkie]

They just need to be within the capability of the testing infrastructure, i.e. so everyone who reports symptoms can obtain a test in a local test centre or a home test, and receive a result within at most a couple of days. I don't trust that this will necessarily happen (because I don't trust the Government as far as I could pick them up and throw them), but it should buy time to increase that.

My understanding is that many people with cold/flu symptoms now want a test. How long would we need to lockdown to cater for all this demand? How long could we unlock for before demand outstrips supply again? How long would you have us doing this for?

Would you definitely have the same view if your job was at risk of being axed if lockdowns continue?

Obviously I'm talking about preventing killing humans.

The average age of a Covid19 death is 83, but the vast majority of people of that age do survive.

How can you prevent older people dying?

We have already extended our lives well beyond what was the norm just 30 years ago.

I'm ways outlined in a documentary by Attenborough called xtinction The Facts. Very informative.

If you wish to refer to an external source in this discussion, please provide a link and a relevant quote.

A future pandemic may be even more deadly than Covid19.

Covid19 isn't particularly deadly. The point is that you claim we can "prevent new viruses from infecting humans " but that's a fallacy.

I'm astounded that you talk about prevention of catastrophes such as pandemics, nuclear war & climate change & you meet resistance.

Surely, with what's going on these threats should now be taken seriously. Jeez.

This thread is about whether we should go into lockdown due to infections of Sars-Cov-2. I am not going to be drawn into debating any other matters such as nuclear wars in this thread.

The fact is you claim that virus infections can be "prevented" but offer no evidence of this.

 

[brad465]

You can prevent new viruses from infecting humans by staying away from their rainforest habitat, & preventing other close contact with wild animals such as in wet markets. There could even be a 'go between' animal like livestock in cut down rainforests used for farming. So say, wild animal - livestock - human. Of course, complete prevention of pandemics may be impossible - but certainly through international cooperation, we could prevent some. Don't forget SARS was a Coronavirus & not enough was done to prevent\prepare for another.

I was talking about destruction in terms of not taking threats serious as I clearly outlined.

You cannot "prevent" something that has been occurring naturally for as long as we have existed.

You say "not enough" was done to prepare, but what about the work of the Oxford group? Will you acknowledge the fantastic work they've been doing?

Viruses like Sars-Cov-2 kill a tiny percentage of those they infect; in the case of Sars-Cov-2 deaths, the average age is 83 ('flu is lower than this).


And how would you keep cases really low?

It's worth adding that while new viruses/other infectious agents appear, others have been either eradicated or reduced to very low levels through evolution in either the agent and/or their desired host. We know of course smallpox and rinderpest have been eradicated, while things like the Plague and polio are rarely a problem now, but in our history have been very troublesome (the Black death being the standout).

 

[big_rig]

They just need to be within the capability of the testing infrastructure, i.e. so everyone who reports symptoms can obtain a test in a local test centre or a home test, and receive a result within at most a couple of days. I don't trust that this will necessarily happen (because I don't trust the Government as far as I could pick them up and throw them), but it should buy time to increase that.

Just this week I got a test on the same day I desired one, and had the results sent to me at 5AM the following morning - barely 14 hours later. According to the Guardian/the Mayor of London this is impossible though. I think I trust the media and opposition politicians even less than the Government, and that is saying something with this lot!

 

[yorkie]

It's worth adding that while new viruses/other infectious agents appear, others have been either eradicated or reduced to very low levels through evolution in either the agent and/or their desired host. We know of course smallpox and rinderpest have been eradicated, while things like the Plague and polio are rarely a problem now, but in our history have been very troublesome (the Black death being the standout).

Yes, but my point is that the solution to most pathogens is immunity, not lockdowns.

(Pathogens with high death rates, a short incubation period and low transmission rates are much easier to eliminate than pathogens with low death rates, many asymptomatic cases, and high transmission rates)

 

[Bletchleyite]

Just this week I got a test on the same day I desired one, and had the results sent to me at 5AM the following morning - barely 14 hours later. According to the Guardian/the Mayor of London this is impossible though. I think I trust the media and opposition politicians even less than the Government, and that is saying something with this lot!

There has been an issue in some locations, though. A friend who had symptoms a couple of weeks ago had all sorts of faff to get one, and the Government graphs show the number of tests as near equal to the capacity.